AbCellera Biologics Inc. (ABCL) Q3 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Operator: Good afternoon. And welcome to AbCellera's Q3 2026 Business Update Conference Call. My name is Sarah, and I will facilitate the audio portion of today's interactive broadcast. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press *1 again. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Tryn T. Stimart, chief legal and compliance officer. You may proceed.

Tryn T. Stimart: Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for AbCellera's third quarter 2026 Earnings Call. I am Tryn T. Stimart, AbCellera's Chief Legal and Compliance Officer. Speaking on today's call are doctor Carl Hansen, AbCellera's president and CEO doctor Sarah Noonberg, AbCellera's chief medical officer and Andrew Booth, AbCellera's chief financial officer. During this call, we may make statements about our strategic priorities and financial outlook based on our current expectations and in accordance with the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, of 2000. Our statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described. Please review the risk factors section of our most recent Form 10 k and subsequent 10 Q filings with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of these risks. AbCellera assumes no obligation to update any forward looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after today's date. Our presentation today, our earnings press release, and our SEC filings are available on our Investor Relations website. The information we provide about our pipeline is intended for the community and is not promotional. As we transition to our prepared remarks, please note that this call is being recorded and will be available for replay on our Investor Relations website and that all dollars referred to during the call are US dollars. After our prepared remarks, we will open the line for questions and answers. I will now turn the call over to Carl.

Carl Hansen: Thanks, Tryn, and thank you everybody for joining us today. Q3 was a transformative quarter for AbCellera. Driven primarily by our positive top line Phase 2 results for ABCL635 which is an investigational antibody for the non hormonal treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms or hot flashes. The phase 2 study was designed to evaluate efficacy and safety at 4 weeks, following a single 600 milligram injection of ABCL635. The data which we announced on August 10th, show that ABCL635 has strong potential to redefine the standard of care for non hormonal treatment of hot flashes. On the strength of these data, we have an exciting opportunity to develop a potential category-defining women's health product with clear differentiation across efficacy, safety, convenience. In line with this, we believe our data also significantly expands the commercial prospects for ABCL635 and we are fully committed to bringing it into late stage development next year. In the next few slides, I will review the key results put them into context with respect to existing therapies. Our first key efficacy endpoint was reduction in the frequency of moderate and severe hot flashes. This slide shows the effect of ABCL635 plotted as change from baseline values using both the primary analysis on the left which included only values from weeks 2, 3, and 4, as well as a prespecified sensitivity analysis on the right that included week 1 data as well. I first note that our data shows rapid onset of benefit with a significant placebo adjusted treatment difference of 2.6 events already present at week 1. And then increasing improvements over the full 4-week period. At 4 weeks, the ABCL635 group has a mean reduction of 8.8 events per day compared to a mean reduction of only 3.5 events per day in the placebo group representing a placebo adjusted treatment difference of 5.3 events. Expressed as a percent change from baseline, the ABCL635 group experienced an 83% reduction from baseline in daily events compared to a 33% reduction in the placebo group for a placebo adjusted treatment difference of 50%. Notably, the benefit of ABCL635 was highly consistent across subgroup analyses and the data were robust to a variety of sensitivity analyses. Our second key efficacy endpoint was reduction in the severity of BMS, which is reported on a 3-point scale representing mild, moderate, and severe events. As with frequency, we see a rapid onset of benefit with significant improvement at the 1-week time point and increasing improvement out to 4 weeks. At 4 weeks, the mean severity scores decreased by 1.4 points and 0.3 points for the placebo group. For a placebo adjusted difference of 1.1 points. Expressed as a percent change from baseline, the ABCL635 group experienced a 58% mean reduction in severity from baseline, compared to a 12% mean reduction in the placebo group. For a placebo adjusted difference of 46%. As an alternative to reporting population averages, another valuable way to look at the data is to assess the fraction of patients that experience different ranges of treatment benefit. In the table on the left, you can see that 37 percent of ABCL635 participants had complete or 100% resolution of moderate or severe events at 4 weeks. This compared to only 2.2% of placebo patients. To our knowledge, these levels of complete resolution of moderate and severe events have not been reported for any nonhormonal VMS treatments, and are at least comparable, if not superior, to reports from studies of hormone therapy. Furthermore, nearly 61% of ABCL635 participants had at least a 90% improvement from baseline in the number of moderate to severe events, compared to only 8.7% of placebo patients and a full 78% more than 3-quarters of patients, had over 75% reduction. These large and clinically meaningful benefits were also observed for severity, as shown in the table on the right. While acknowledging the potential limitations and cross trial comparisons, it is worth evaluating our observed treatment effects against data collected similarly at 4 weeks, from the registrational studies of the 2 approved small molecule NKTR antagonist fezalonitant and elzanetant. Looking at the placebo adjusted reduction in frequency of moderate and severe VMS, expressed as a percentage of the baseline levels, our placebo adjusted treatment effect is 50%. Which is approximately twice as large as the 20% to 25% reductions reported in Phase 3 studies of fezalonitant and elzanetant. An even greater difference in treatment effect was observed in improvements in VMS severity. With a roughly 3.5- to 5-fold greater benefit as compared to the registrational studies of fezalinotant and elenzanotant. Importantly, these markedly enhanced treatment effects were achieved without any clear signal of gastrointestinal or liver toxicity. This slide summarizes adverse events reported in at least 2 patients in either treatment group. Regardless of relationship, occurring during the first 4 weeks of treatment. ABCL 35 demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile across the dataset. Overall, there was a numerically higher number of patients with at least 1 adverse event in the ABCL635 group compared with the placebo group. There were no serious or severe adverse events in the ABCL635 group compared to 1 placebo patient with a serious adverse event and 2 placebo patients with severe adverse events. Similar to the data in the Phase 1 study, ABCL635 was associated an increased incidence of headache, with the majority rated as mild and transient across both treatment groups. Fatigue was also reported more often in the ABCL635 group although all events were mild. Importantly, we did not see any evidence of gastrointestinal toxicity in the study. Despite it being consistently reported with the 2 approved small molecule NKTR inhibitors. In fact, we observed a lower incidence of nausea the ABCL635 group and no events of diarrhea or abdominal pain compared to multiple patients reporting these events in the placebo group. Summing up, our Phase 2 data showed a combination of breakthrough efficacy and favorable tolerability. Based on this, we believe ABCL635 has the potential to redefine the standard of care for non-hormonal treatment of hot flashes. Looking forward, we are committed to advancing ABCL635 into late stage development and are actively working through the FDA's model informed drug development or MIDD program to gain alignment on dose selection for subsequent studies. We expect to disclose additional data through 12 weeks and the open-label extension or OLE data in early 2027. As a reminder, in terms of efficacy, the primary objective of the Phase 2 trial was to evaluate the benefit of a single dose of ABCL635 over the course of 4 weeks. This is the data we have just reviewed. The remaining portion of the 12-week data is to monitor the decline in efficacy over the final 8-week washout period with this data used to support exposure response modeling for late stage dose selection. Following the initial 12-week period, OLE data will provide an additional 4-week assessment allowing us to characterize repeat dose dynamics in the treatment group, alongside initial active exposure in the placebo group. Expect to initiate late stage development for menopause, VMS in 2027, And in parallel, are expanding the indications for ABCL635 to include hot flashes caused by hormone suppression associated with breast and prostate cancer treatment, and we expect to initiate clinical trials in these 2 populations in 2027. Finally, today, we are pleased to announce a new program, ABCL992, which is a next generation half life extended analog of ABCL635. ABCL992 entered IND-enabling activities in Q3. Building on our landmark data from ABCL635, we believe this program will advance another therapeutic option that provides even greater convenience to patients through an extended dosing interval, and facilitates broader patient reach. Moving on from ABCL635. As previously guided, today, we are presenting Phase 1 results from our second clinical candidate, ABCL575, which is a long acting investigational antibody targeting ox 40 ligand. ABCL575 entered clinical development as a potential best in class follower of Sanofi's amlutilumab which at the time was in Phase 3 studies for atopic dermatitis. Earlier this year, based on disappointing clinical data, development of amlitelimab was discontinued in atopic dermatitis. Separately, late stage clinical studies of Amgen's rocatinlimab and OX40 targeted antibody also led to discontinuation. On these external results, we will not pursue development of ABCL575 in atopic dermatitis. And while we believe OX40 ligand class has potential in other autoimmune conditions, we do not currently have plans to develop it beyond Phase 1. With that, I will hand it over to Sarah to discuss our top line results from the Phase 1 study. Sarah?

Sarah Noonberg: Thank you, Carl. Despite setbacks in the OX40/OX40 ligand class, the top line results from the Phase 1 clinical trial of ABCL575 demonstrated a favorable tolerability and PK profile that were very much in line with our target product profile. As a reminder, our Phase 1 study was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled single ascending dose study in 40 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 65. Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive a single dose of ABCL575 at a dose of 75 milligrams to 900 milligrams subcutaneously or a matching placebo. Given the expected long half life of ABCL575, participants were followed for approximately 1 year. Study endpoints, included safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. The following data reflects a near complete dataset with the final participants approaching their last study visit. 30 participants received a single dose of ABCL 75 and 10 received a single dose of placebo. The overall study population had a roughly even split between males and females and an average age of 44 years. There were no clinically important imbalances among treatment groups. ABCL 75 demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile in this dataset. This slide summarizes adverse events reported in at least 2 participants in either treatment group regardless of relationship. There were no serious or severe adverse events in the ABCL575 group and 1 severe adverse event in the placebo group. The overall adverse event rate was comparable between the 2 treatment groups with about 57% of ABCL575 participants reporting at least 1 adverse event compared with 60% on placebo. The most common adverse events were injection site reactions and headache that were neither dose dependent nor markedly different between ABCL575 and placebo groups. There were no safety findings indicative of clinically important immunosuppression in this dataset. In terms of pharmacokinetics, ABCL575 showed sustained exposure that was a approximately dose proportional across the dose range. With the data available to date, the mean half life was approximately 65 days, ranging from 43 days in the lowest dose cohort to 79 days in the 600-milligram cohort. This is in line with the mean half-life of 67 days predictive from our preclinical data. We also compared our exposures against an efficacy, target threshold of 4 micrograms per milliliter. That threshold is inferred from published clinical data on amlitelimab. At clinically relevant dose closures were maintained well above that threshold for over 12 weeks. Taken together, these data support dosing once a quarter or less frequently which was a key aspect of our target product profile. In summary, our Phase 1 study met its primary endpoints including a favorable tolerability and PK profile that supported extended dosing interval. As Carl mentioned, based on external developments in the OX40/OX40 ligand class, we do not intend to pursue clinical development further at this time. I would like to thank the study participants, investigators, and the site team for their contributions and commitment to this study. I will turn the call back to Carl who can share additional corporate development updates for the quarter.

Carl Hansen: Thanks, Sarah. Having just reviewed our clinical results for ABCL635 and ABCL575, I would like to pull back and share some perspective on what these mean for AbCellera. A little over a year ago, we were in preclinical studies and working to make the difficult transition from a platform company to a clinical biotech. As of today, we have brought our first 2 programs successfully through early stage clinical development. With ABCL635, we have delivered breakthrough results that open a path to creating a transformative product in women's health. And by next year, AbCellera will transition into a late stage clinical development company. Clinical success has created an exciting opportunity. And taking advantage of this opportunity requires resources. Following the release of our phase 2 data for ABCL635, we completed a significantly oversubscribed $200 million capital raise. A strengthened balance sheet, we can bring ABCL635 into late stage development, while continuing to invest in our broader pipeline. Turning to this pipeline. While investor attention has been overwhelmingly focused on ABCL635, we believe this is but the first example of our platform delivering value. Our goal is to prove this by repeatedly inventing and developing programs that emphasize innovation, and that have potential to be breakthrough medicines. Today, we have several updates to our pipeline. First, our previously disclosed programs, ABCL688 and ABCL386, continue to progress through IND enabling activities. As mentioned earlier, we have added a new program, ABCL992, which is a next generation version of ABCL635, engineered for less frequent dosing. And today, we are also announcing 2 additional programs, ABCL385, a new program for an undisclosed indication in oncology, and ABCL646, a potential first in class antibody antagonist, against an undisclosed ion channel target. As with previous programs, we do not expect to disclose further on ABCL385 and ABCL646 until they enter clinical development. In summary, Q3 was a breakthrough quarter for AbCellera. We delivered compelling clinical data for ABCL635 that sets the stage for late stage development next year. In parallel, successfully completed our studies of ABCL575, have advanced ABCL688 and ABCL386, and have added 3 new programs, ABCL992, ABCL385, and ABCL646 to our pipeline. With these accomplishments, we have successfully delivered on all our stated 2020 corporate priorities. With completion of our financing, we are in an excellent financial position as we close out 2026 and we are expecting that 2027 will be another significant year for AbCellera. And with that, I will hand it over to Andrew to discuss our financials. Andrew?

Andrew Booth: Thanks, Carl. As Carl pointed out, AbCellera continues to be in a strong liquidity position with over $790 million in cash and equivalents, with over $100 million in available committed government funding to execute on our strategy. We are continuing to execute on our plans with a focus on internal programs and leveraging our process development and clinical manufacturing investments. Turning to revenues and expenses. Revenues for the quarter were over $10 million compared to a total revenue of approximately $9 million in the same quarter of 2025. The revenue this quarter consisted mostly of research fees. Our research and development expenses for the quarter were approximately $44 million as we continue to focus on investments in our internal programs. R&D expenses in the same quarter last year were approximately $12 million higher due to a couple of specific investments in internal programs in Q3 of 2025. In sales, general, and administration, expenses were approximately $14 million, compared to $25 million last year. The large decrease in SG&A expenses relates to the conclusion of our intellectual property litigation and to changes in teams following the focus on our internal pipeline. Looking at earnings, we are reporting a net loss of roughly $41 million for the third quarter of 2026. Compared to a loss of about $57 million a year earlier. Terms of earnings per share, this result works out to a loss of $0.13 per share on a basic and diluted basis. Looking at cash flows, Altogether, we finished the quarter with over $790 million of cash and marketable securities. Operating activities for the first 9 months of the year generated $19 million in cash. Included in the operating cash flow are the receipt of upfront payments under our TCE deals with Jazz and Vertex, as well as the Bruker litigation settlement paid out in 2026. As Carl mentioned, we concluded our oversubscribed equity raise of $200 million in the quarter. The proceeds from this raise combined with government funding and employee stock option exercises resulted in $214 million of financing cash inflows. Excluding marketable securities, investment activities year to date included approximately $8 million of capital expenditures, offset by a similar amount in government grants received. As a part of our treasury strategy, we now have about $600 million invested in short term marketable securities. Our investment activities for the quarter included a $197 million net investment in these holdings. As a reminder, we have received commitments for funding the advancement of our internal pipeline from the Government of Canada's Strategic Innovation Fund and the Government of British Columbia. This available capital does not show up on our balance sheet. With over $790 million in cash and equivalents, and the unused portion of our secured government funding, we have over $890 million in available liquidity to execute on our strategy. In addition, we have further available liquidity from our ownership of our other Vancouver based lab and office building as well as our GMP facility. With respect to overall company expenditures, our capital needs are very manageable. And we continue to believe that we have sufficient liquidity to fund at least the next 3 years of pipeline investments. And with that, we would be happy to take your questions. Operator?

Operator: We will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press 1 again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality. If you are muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Evan Seigerman with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Evan Seigerman: Hi, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question, and congrats on-- I know you presented the 635 data at 2 conferences. On this test quarter following the data disclosure. Can you share what feedback you got from clinicians in the field and what their level of excitement is? And more importantly, what did you learn from those clinicians that helped you inform the next steps in development of this asset? Thank you so much.

Sarah Noonberg: Hi, Evan. Thanks for the question. And really, it was a remarkable reception that we had both at IMS in Rio and TMS, the Menopause Society in San Diego this past month. I would say the reception that we have gotten was nothing short of incredible, fantastic, cannot wait to participate. When are we starting Phase 3? I would say that, you know, we were hearing that these results are, you know, even better than what physicians have been experiencing with hormonal therapy. And certainly, the hormonal therapy data that was presented with the latest hormone therapy, Estetrol, was at least on a side by side comparison, much stronger. So if they are anxiously awaiting our next steps, we have had consultant meetings with KOLs at both meetings, and we have gotten a lot of good encouragement to move as quickly as we can.

Evan Seigerman: Great. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Steven Seedhouse with Cantor. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Steven Seedhouse: Hey, great. Thanks so much. Congrats on all the progress. Wanted to ask 2 slightly different questions. First is just on 992, the new asset. New NKTR long acting asset. Anything in your market research that suggests this extended dose interval could meaningfully change sort of the receptivity or the market adoption of that asset? And just how do you plan to develop it in parallel I am thinking, obviously, you are in a few different indications with 635. I do not know if you are planning on maybe 1 in oncology or 1 in post menopause, if you could talk about that. And then have a quick follow-up. Thanks.

Carl Hansen: Sure, Steven. Carl here. I will maybe start the answer, and, you know, Sarah might be able to add something after the fact. So first of all, we did some market research early on ABCL635 where we did ask questions looking at, you know, the importance of dosing. Like, once daily as a pill versus once 1 month versus 3 months. You know, the general trend was that people preferred. there is a majority preference for a once monthly injectable. And I would say that the people that believed that you could deliver a molecule that would last for 3 months were also very excited about that. But in the interviews, you had you know, some patients that thought. Just thought, hey. that is too good to be true. So we view that as very positive. In terms of you know, our view of the opportunity here, you know, first of all, we find ourselves in an unbelievable position having you know, this type of data with this kind of strength, and there are not a lot of competing molecules around. We anticipate that there will be, you know, groups out there that immediately think well, I am gonna follow that up with a half life extended version. And so we have had this small in the wings ready to go. And we are able to bring it into IND enabling activities immediately following the data. So we are well ahead of that. Response that we expect to see from the market, and that is part of shoring up our position and making sure we make the most out of the opportunity. You know, in addition to patient convenience, the other part, and I did, I think, mention this slightly in my prepared remarks, is that a longer dosing interval means that you have to make fewer doses per patient. That, of course, improves the cost of goods, but also makes it easier to satisfy a broader reach of demand. And we think that is gonna be an important at least optionality as this program goes forward.

Steven Seedhouse: Very good. Thanks, Carl. And my follow-up was just you have a handful of new lines in the pipeline here, the internal pipelines. Expanding pretty rapidly. Was curious, are you thinking about this as AbCellera just has the has the desire and capacity to develop all of these wholly owned broad internal pipeline, or are you looking to or open to licensing out some of these assets as they translate into the clinic and continue to advance. Separate from ox 40, I mean, because, obviously, that 1's parked for now. Thank you.

Carl Hansen: Sure. So, I mean, our stated strategy for some time has been to not be a 1-trick pony, but to be able to show we can reproduceably generate medicines that are exciting and worth bringing into clinical development. You are seeing that now come into play as the pipeline fills up. You know, everything we have brought forward, you know, we have conviction in. Of course, we are gonna see how they work, and we will get the early clinical data that will be part of deciding what to bring forward. And then at every moment, we decide to bring a program forward we are having to make a decision as to, you know, resource allocation and bandwidth. Today, we feel like we have got our hands around this well, that we can fund it in the early stage. And that it is gonna create value. We are gonna keep looking at that as we move forward. But there may well be opportunities to out license. it is gonna depend on the program.

Steven Seedhouse: Thanks, Carl.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Roger Song with Jefferies. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Roger Song: Great. Thanks for the update and taking all the question. Maybe just regarding the early next year data update, with the strong 4-week data, understanding the single dose you know, 8-week washout period, Just a curious, if it is possible we can see the 8- and then 12-weeks comparable to ROs. And then what. what is your internal modeling suggesting to you? And then regarding the open-label extension, you know, you have set the bar high for yourself, but just in terms of the open label, what is the design the patient could be the potential we will see some difference between the first 4 weeks versus the extension 4 weeks. Thank you.

Sarah Noonberg: Hi, Roger. I will take this. In terms of what we expect from the 8-week and 12-week, just as a reminder, this was a single dose study. So the expectation is we see our most pronounced results around the 4 week time point. that is why we chose that as our prespecified efficacy analysis time point. And the goal of continuing to follow patients for efficacy and safety through 8 and 12 weeks was to see how efficacy decreases as exposure decreases and to build an exposure response model that would then support dose selection. So given that this is only a single dose, we do not expect that efficacy is maintained. Through the full 12 weeks. And in fact, if that were the case, it would be harder to build that exposure response model for dose selection. So the goal is to watch as drug washes out, and we have already disclosed our half life. So we expect that drug washes out to look at how efficacy changes, and that supports our model informed drug development pathway.

Carl Hansen: So the 4 week efficacy is what we expected in terms of their. Our efficacy data. And if you say, well, what are our expectations in the open label? I think what we would like to see is when placebo patients crossover, they have a similar degree of benefit. I think that will provide or orthogonal data supported. And then we look forward to sharing what happens when the active patients receive a second dose. So there will be both an efficacy and a safety dataset that will come early next year, and I think, you know, it just will provide continued conviction that we have in this program to move it into to late stage development. If I could just add 1 more thing, Roger. You asked about the comparison to the small molecules in efficacy. So we did mention that at week 1, we already have efficacy that looks comparable to the small molecules. And as Sarah mentioned, as the drug washes out, we are gonna see efficacy decline. Since we are starting so much better, we expect that, you know, at some point we are gonna cross over that. But, of course, that is not the goal. Our goal is not to make a drug at this point that is equal in efficacy, but 1 that has formidable advantage in efficacy. So we are looking to preserve that as we decide on the final dosing.

Roger Song: Got it. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brian Cheng with JPMorgan. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Brian Cheng: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking our questions today. Maybe just first as we think about next data cut, from the washout and also the OLE, Just curious if you can talk about, you know, the size of the OLE portion. Just how many patients have rolled over so far into the OLE? I have a quick follow-up. Thank you.

Sarah Noonberg: Brian, I will take that. I do not want to preclude the data that we will be sharing, but I can say that the uptake of the open-label extension was extremely high, as you might expect, given the efficacy results seen at 4 weeks. So you will see the vast majority of patients as part of that dataset.

Brian Cheng: Great. And then on 992, as you think about the next step, moving into later stage development, what is the ultimate strategy to develop 992? Is it for do you have a specific set of indications in mind that will be better served with a longer half life, or is this more-- should we think of it as more of a life cycle management behind 635?

Carl Hansen: I appreciate the question. So, you know, as mentioned, we see an opportunity to have a product that we could create for more patients and 1 that would have an extended dosing interval. I think that is got important advantages commercially. We have not yet run that to ground. So exactly how we are gonna position the 2 products is probably not something we are ready to talk about today. What I will say is that you know, the existence of 992 is in no way a move away from 635. We are all in on 635. We think that is gonna be a terrific product, and we are just looking to reinforce that with 1 that is even better and that anticipates how we expect people to react to it.

Brian Cheng: Great. Thanks for the color.

Operator: Your next call comes from the line of Andrea Tan with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Andrea Tan: Good evening. Thanks for taking the question. I also have 1 follow-up on 992 there. Just if you are able to share what specific modifications were utilized to extend the half life And Carl, I just wanted to follow-up on the target half life for injection interval that you believe would be advantageous here. Just curious, what that target is. Is it the every 3 months that you mentioned? And then I have a follow-up.

Carl Hansen: Sure. So in terms of the modification, we have not yet disclosed anything about the sequence of 992. What I will say is that we have used you know, engineering practices that were free to use and that have been well trodden. And so we are-- we have high confidence that this will play out the way that we expect. In terms of dosing interval, ABCL635, originally the TPP was for a monthly dosing. Obviously, based on the data we have shown, we are well within that. And so the question now is what exactly is the dosing to meet that? We do expect that the follow on product would have you know, a dosing interval that you know, probably safely twice, perhaps 3 or even more in terms of dosing interval, but we have to do some studies still to nail that down. So I do not wanna get ahead of ourselves here.

Andrea Tan: Okay. And then just, I guess, maybe taking a step back and broadly, as you think about the progress that you have made with these first 2 internal programs, I would be curious just your thoughts on what the primary translational or mechanistic read through are from those initial programs to the broader pipeline that you have. Thanks so much.

Carl Hansen: I am sorry. Could you rephrase that question? I am not sure that I got the full thrust of it.

Andrea Tan: Sure. Just, I guess, maybe on the back of 635 and 575 and the progress that you have seen there, I am just curious on the read through that you see. To the rest of your the rest of your pipeline.

Carl Hansen: Sure. So, you know, the progress on 5 and 5, as I mentioned, shows that we have successfully navigated that transition from being a platform company to standing up you know, a clinical team and successfully executing those programs. On 635, you know, the next, the next big lift is gonna be to build that out into late stage development and to be able to take it forward to approval. So that is the read through on the operational side. In terms of, you know, read through on the platform. 635, I think, is a good archetype of the type of program we are trying to bring forward. So well validated biology, large unmet need, very sparse competition, and a difficult target where our platform has been able to deliver. We have got other programs behind coming like that. You know, I might call out, for instance, 646 that today we disclosed is a antagonist against an ion channel target. that is an area where we have been working for a long time where we think we have a very strong competitive advantage. And if it were to go forward and ultimately be a drug, it would be the first antibody against an ion channel target that is been done. So trying to get into that new target space is definitely something that we are focused on. We think that is important in what is becoming an increasingly competitive world.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Kripa Devarakonda with Truist Securities. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Srikripa Devarakonda: Hey, guys. Thank you so much for taking my Congratulations on the progress. The last few months. I just wanted to clarify a timeline. From my understanding, the 12-week data were expected by year-end 2026. By end of the year, Am I right? And if so, wondering what has driven the move to early 2027. I guess the question I really have is do you have all the data internally for the finalization of the Phase 3 trial design and you are in conversation with regulators, and then I have a follow-up question.

Sarah Noonberg: Thanks for the question. You know, there is nothing unusual from a timing standpoint. The data is coming in. We are doing the monitoring and analysis. And really, it is the timing of release of this data between late 26 and early 2027. So there is nothing that fundamentally has changed.

Srikripa Devarakonda: And you have all the data internally for the finalization of phase 3 trial design or the conversations you are having with regulators?

Sarah Noonberg: We are in the midst of regulatory discussions, KOL discussions about their clinical trial designs. I think we have a clear pathway that has been laid out by the 2 small molecules. I think overall, there are going to be little surprises, but there are additional endpoints and design aspects as well as sample size and populations that we are still under discussions with. So we have all that we need in terms of the feedback, but going through regulatory discussions and finalizing our dose takes a little bit of time. And while we are doing that, we are scaling up our manufacturing processes. So we remain on track to initiate late stage studies in 2027.

Srikripa Devarakonda: Okay. Just a follow-up question. In August, I think when we talked about it, you raised the possibility of a head to head study Are you still considering including an active competitor or is this something that we have to wait for once you are done with your trial design?

Sarah Noonberg: At this point, we are not gonna be sharing any more information about our pivotal study or late stage designs, but we will be disclosing that in the coming the coming months.

Srikripa Devarakonda: Thank you so much.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Allison Bratzel with Piper Sandler. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Analyst: Hi there. This is Peter on for Allison. Thank you for taking the question. So you expect to advance 635 into BMS associated with breast and prostate cancer treatments next year. Which populations in settings are you prioritizing, and what might those initial trials look like? Also, what needs to be established in the menopause program before we before those studies can begin? Thank you.

Sarah Noonberg: Thanks, Peter. In terms of breadth, I think the overall study design can be inferred from the OASIS 4 study of elenzenatant where they ran a pivotal study in the breast cancer population. So I would expect that you would see a lot of similarity in that study design. And just as a reminder, the treatment effects seen with elzanetant highly comparable in BMS associated with naturally occurring menopause, and BMS associated with breast cancer treatment. So while we have not studied that patient population yet, we have a lot of conviction that we will see a similarly strong treatment effect. In terms of prostate cancer, that is much less data available, some case reports and early studies. So there, we will be doing a little bit more work in terms of the patient population and correct study endpoints. So there, we expect to initiate mid stage studies in 2027. But I think the, expected treatment effect, just given what we have heard from urologists that have used oral small molecules in patient populations with fairly problematic BMS has been very encouraging. I think we have less of a handle right now on what the exact patient population should look like, but those are ongoing and very active discussions and certainly a lot of enthusiasm from the field.

Analyst: Great. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Annabel Samimy with UBS. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Analyst: Hi. This is Avery on for Annabel. So much for taking our questions, and congrats on all the progress with 635 today. So a couple from us. First, since your last investor call, can you talk maybe a little bit about any important market developments in menopause that give you greater confidence in the market growth? And more specifically in the opportunity for 635. And then separately, you recently presented the Phase 1 SAD/MAD data at TMS where immunogenicity looked quite low with 2% anti-drug antibodies. So what gives you confidence that this will hold with longer term and broader exposure? Thanks so much.

Carl Hansen: Sure. I will I will start on the market side. So I do not know if a lot has changed over the last quarter, but what we are seeing is quite a dramatic turn of attention towards treating VMS. I think that was, you know, probably in large part prompted by the removal of the box wording on hormone therapy. What has been you know, a dramatic increase in, you know, women that are seeking and expect to get treatment for problematic BMS. So that is for us is a tailwind. We have always positioned the product not as a substitute for hormone therapy, but as a great alternative for those that either cannot tolerate or have contraindications against or who choose that they do not want to take hormone therapy. The other the other thing I think that is interesting is the, you know, the way that the small molecules have played out. And you know, I think 1 of the things that is happening in the market is there is, you know, some, I will not say friction, but it is. There is some discussion around the risk benefit and the use of these over some other therapies that are being used as nonhormonal options, particularly SSIs, for instance. And, you know, here, we think we have got a product that will have a very clear efficacy advantage. And we intend or we hope to have a safety profile that looks like it has thus far. And so we think that we could be positioned to be you know, really, you know, standing alone as a NKP option and perhaps even any option for non hormonal treatment.

Sarah Noonberg: And I will chime in terms of your question around immunogenicity. Ultimately, conviction comes from in silico modeling as well as some early preclinical data. Ultimately, clinical data will give us a lot more conviction. So more data will come as we see repeat dose from the open-label extension, and that is something that we will continue to monitor. But, really, this is something that we will need to play out with repeat and longer term studies. Stay tuned, but, certainly, our current dataset is very encouraging, and there is nothing in our modeling or what we have seen preclinically that gives us any concern.

Analyst: Thanks so much.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brendan Smith with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Brendan Smith: Great. Thanks for taking the questions, guys, and congrats on all the progress here. I wanted to actually ask about you know, the earlier stage pipeline. I think you have got now 4 or 5 new assets in IND enabling studies. So, I mean, how many of those should we reasonably expect to hit maybe Phase 1 over the next year, let's say? I guess, how are you prioritizing the timing of those entering the clinic? And maybe just what are some of the gating factors kinda dictating some of those decisions at this point? Thanks.

Carl Hansen: Sure. So you know, just responding to your question about the timing. So, obviously, 5 is a big focus right now. it is the 1 that has gone the furthest. Behind that, we are starting to build what we think is quite a compelling pipeline. As I mentioned before, ABCL688 and 386 continue to go through IND enabling activities. Both of those have a timeline that would bring them into the clinic. In 2027. Behind that, we have just announced 992. it is started IND enabling activities, this past quarter in Q3. So it will be sometime definitely not in 2027 that it will be in the clinic, but perhaps in 2028. And for 646 and 385. You know, we have not given any further guidance, but we will update those as they get closer to clinical development.

Brendan Smith: Got it. Sounds good. Thank you.

Operator: There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Carl Hansen for closing remarks.

Carl Hansen: Great. Thank you everyone for joining us today. it is been a great quarter we look forward to speaking to you again next quarter.

Operator: This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.